When someone says they're "entitled to an opinion" what are they actually saying? If you take it literally it's completely absurd. There's no way to stop someone from having an opinion. You can prevent them from expressing it, sure. But preventing someone from having an opinion? The very notion is just silly. You might as well say you're entitled to think.
But when balancing the game you're not after people's opinions, you're after sound judgements of unit performance. And how do you decide who's judgement to trust?
Once more you to do not have to trust someone. This is not court where someone credibility affects weather a court has take their testimony on event as true or not.
One can simply test what they are saying and see if they are right or not.
When one responds to claims about units with comments about ones play-card one turn a impersonal issues into a personal issue.
If my rank is higher than your will my comment be right and yours wrong?
And this basic empyrical evidence will provide a support for the thesis that accuracy and correctness of opinion on the jubject is directly correlated to ones knowledge of the subject or in this case, skill as well therefore rank, which is an indicator of skill.
It does not mean top Players are always right, but rock bottom 4v4 players are quite often wrong in comparison.
I can give you a very long list of things you got completely wrong. Will that make you stop spamming posts?
There is no direct correlation between knowledge of game stat and mechanics and rank. Else Mr.Smith would be rank in the Top ten.
...
Who's opinion should we listen to? Ullumulu or HelpingHans?
...
Actually Ullumulu did claim that PPSH conscripts were OP even when DBP was being tested and the balance team seems to have come to the same conclusion so they plan to nerf the PPSH (in a bad manner if you ask me).
...
Obviously, but if you are(using completely random, but not rare example), say rank 1200 brit, your opinion is that tommies and brens underperform. And VonIvan says they overperform.
Now, which opinion should we disregard here?
...
Quite simply test what they are saying and form an opinion of your own. One does not have to take the word others when one can test for himself.
....
Vipper its CoH2, ist DEFENSIVE bonuses that allow you to be aggressive and offensive.
This is why tanky infantry can be offensive.
This is why more beefy tanks can push further.
Armor vet does play into offensive capabilities, especially against handheld AT and other meds.
Can you pls stop writing inaccuracy just to claim that I am wrong.
Armor has very little very little affect as an offensive bonus especially against handheld AT because of deflection damage.
The vet 2 armor bonus on 140 armor would offer very little to the unit.
Fact is, a playercard is -apart from watching an actual match of said person- the best indicator about a person's skill in the modes (1v1-4v4) this person is playing. And ofc it is extremely important in balance discussions.
Why on earth would you balance the game around a skill level where 99% of the issues have nothing to do with unit imbalance, but just lack of knowledge and lack of micro instead?! "Imbalance" is just being used as an excuse for horrible micro and strategies a lot there.
No it is not.
The opinion of someone has nothing to do with his ladder position.
Using a completely random example:
SU-76's XP value is too low weather is it VonIvan who makes the claim or Helsche87. (names are chosen to serve as an example, nothing personal with either player).
I have to point out that one should not only take into out the basic stat of the unit but also the veterancy.
For instance if one would want to "change" the PzIV to become more offensive oriented one would be better of in replacing the vet 2 armor bonuses with offensive properties like penetration/accuracy/reload.
The majority of units have only the base stat stat changed while keep their old vet bonuses which are unfit for their new role/stats.
On the current state of PzIV I have to say that it might need to have its scatter increased it seem to be too lethal vs infantry. Or even better maybe reduce the "kill radius" but increase the far damage making the damage less rng.
Conscript PPSh
Conscripts are now only upgraded with 2 PPsh’s per squad to reduce their close range lethality, improve counter play and increase reaction time for the opposing player.
• Number of PPSh slot items awarded from 3 to 2
Conscripts PPSH are bad from design point of view for a number of reasons.
Sort range weapon should not mix with long range weapon, a offensive weapon should not mix with a defensive ability like "hit the ground".
Suggestion:
Unify the way similar weapon upgrades work. There is little reason for MP40 upgrade to give 5 MP40 and to take up all weapon slot and PPSH to give 3 (2) and leave weapon slot.
Either give 6 PPSH and adjust DPS or replace the PPSH with SVT.
Remove hit the ground from PPSH upgrade.
Option 1 redesign conscripts as defensive infantry and replace Molotov with normal grenade increase, AT grenade range remove ourah and make hit the ground a vet 1 ability.
Make PPsh replace hit the ground with ourah to turn the unit into an offensive one.
Option 2 make "hit the ground" doctrinal.
Other change "hit the ground" should be timed ability. Both "hit the ground" and ourah could scale with veterancy.
Scaling.
Instead of creating a spike with vet 1 armor bonus reduce target size to 1. That will make merge more attractive. Reduce DPS to compensate.
Stug
We feel the Stug’s strong DPSC is disproportionate to its cost. This combination of high rate of fire, strong and armour make the unit over perform in certain situations, especially when produced in numbers. To improve counter play, the following change has been made.
• Reload delay at Veterancy 0 increased by 1.5 seconds
One could even lower some of the penetration of the vehicle and swamp the armor bonus which is not really helpful (or some of reload bonuses) with penetration.
Alternatively one could replace the armor bonus with a target size bonus.
Finally one could replace the vet 1 ability TWP with cloak.
Sniper
Before turning the game into AOE where units are the same one should try to other solution.
For instance reducing the effectiveness of the units when its down to 1 entity, like 1 entity providing vision 1 entity having the sniper rifle or having a penalty to ROF.
Other changes could also help with sniper issues like:\
increasing built time
lowering damage to 64 (no cover penalties) and have the critical kill vs weapon crews only
If model had to ground every time it had to fire on target and if the target was moving around the model, it would have to get up and go down again lowering the DPS or rotate while being on the ground that would look awkward.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
Heartless Jäger 
